Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 472 Results in Economics
TOTM It looks like California consumers, unlike their counterparts in several other states, will be getting cash instead of coupons in their settlement against U.S. Tobacco . . .
It looks like California consumers, unlike their counterparts in several other states, will be getting cash instead of coupons in their settlement against U.S. Tobacco in one of the many follow-on actions to Conwood Co. v. United States Tobacco. The settlement looks to be in the range of $96 million with qualifying customers taking home anywhere between $195 and $585 depending on how many consumers are willing to sign a sworn statement that they purchased more than 30 cans of certain brands in the relevant time period.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Congratulations to the winners! Here’s Tyler and Alex at Marginal Revolution on mechanism design generally and this year’s Nobel winners.
“for having laid the foundations of mechanism design theory.” Here’s a blurb from the Nobel website on mechanism design…
TOTM Greg Mankiw and Tyler Cowen have started the speculation. Cowen prefers “Anne Krueger, Jagdish Bhagwati, and Gordon Tullock for their work on rent-seeking” but predicts . . .
Greg Mankiw and Tyler Cowen have started the speculation. Cowen prefers “Anne Krueger, Jagdish Bhagwati, and Gordon Tullock for their work on rent-seeking” but predicts a behavioral finance prize to Fama, Thaler & French or a prize for research on the principal-agent theory of the firm to Williamson and/or Tirole. Mankiw predicts Fama, Feldstein, or Barro based on some citation analysis. Thomson Scientific adds their own predictions here.
TOTM In case you haven’t already, I recommend taking a gander at today’s New York Time Book Review. In it, there is a review of Naomi . . .
In case you haven’t already, I recommend taking a gander at today’s New York Time Book Review. In it, there is a review of Naomi Klein’s new book, The Shock Doctrine, by Nobel-winning economist, Joe Stiglitz. It’s an abomination (I’m sure the book is an abomination, too, but I’m referring to the book review).
TOTM At his new blog Management R&D, Luke Froeb writes about the strategy of downstream firms reducing capacity in order to increase competition among suppliers… Read . . .
At his new blog Management R&D, Luke Froeb writes about the strategy of downstream firms reducing capacity in order to increase competition among suppliers…
TOTM Wow. This is a coup for Chapman and more importantly (at least to me!), a major loss for GMU. Read the full piece here.
Wow. This is a coup for Chapman and more importantly (at least to me!), a major loss for GMU.
Scholarship Abstract In the face of rising rates of diabetes, many states have passed laws requiring health insurance plans to cover medical treatments for the disease. . . .
In the face of rising rates of diabetes, many states have passed laws requiring health insurance plans to cover medical treatments for the disease. Although supporters of the mandates expect them to improve the health of diabetics, the mandates have the potential to generate a moral hazard to the extent that medical treatments might displace individual behavioral improvements. Another possibility is that the mandates do little to improve insurance coverage for most individuals, as previous research on benefit mandates has suggested that mandates often duplicate what plans already cover. To examine the effects of these mandates, we employ a triple?differences methodology comparing the change in the gap in body mass index (BMI) between diabetics and nondiabetics in mandate and nonmandate states. We find that mandates do generate a moral hazard problem, with diabetics exhibiting higher BMIs after the adoption of these mandates.
TOTM Over the past few weeks I’ve read at least two dozen papers, mostly by legal scholars (but some by economists) employing or critiquing economic analysis . . .
Over the past few weeks I’ve read at least two dozen papers, mostly by legal scholars (but some by economists) employing or critiquing economic analysis of law, that use the term “Chicago School,” in a critical and misleading way. Conventionally, use of this nomenclature comes along with a claim that “Chicago School” economics is code for a particular form of non-interventionist, politically conservative philosophy based upon only an unjustified “faith” in markets.
TOTM In my last post I claimed that there is a no “free market economics orthodoxy” amongst antitrust economists or those working in the field of . . .
In my last post I claimed that there is a no “free market economics orthodoxy” amongst antitrust economists or those working in the field of law and economics. In response to the post, an anonymous TOTM reader emails the following related, and probably more interesting, questions: “is there a free market orthodoxy amongst (1) legal commentators and (2) the Supreme Court?”
